MEERA SAHIB Vs. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is disputing correctness of Exts. P1 to P7 bills. He had approached this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P. (C). No. 17295/2004. In Ext. P8 judgment, which was issued as early as on July, 2004, this Court observed that it is for the petitioner to furnish details of the bills and to demonstrate before the first respondent as to whether any excess amount was paid by him. This Court directed the respondents to consider representation if any submitted by the petitioner and to dispose of the same within two months. It is evident from Ext. P9 that a representation was submitted pursuant to Ext. P8 judgment as early as in July, 2004, and the 2nd respondent had considered the same and disposed of the matter through Ext. P9, which order was issued as early as on 18.09.2004. Now, in this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Ext. P9 after the lapse of more than 8 years. This Court is not in a position to enter upon any adjudication regarding correctness of the computations contained in Exts. P1 to P7. Attempt of the petitioner to demonstrate that there was excess payments has been negatived through Ext. P9 order in the year 2004. The petitioner has not resorted to any remedy of appeal or other appropriate remedies to challenge Ext. P9. Therefore, the writ petition filed at this point of time cannot be entertained at any rate.